Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Wed, 09 March 2016 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: arcing@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: arcing@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C426012DEDE for <arcing@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8jY4t8XX_yPR for <arcing@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C2412DEDC for <arcing@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x236.google.com with SMTP id ig19so36703548igb.1 for <arcing@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:10:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SgKGz65xoGBhzl8UE4smqc6ZyDyhBdbyp1Cd/UybCKc=; b=ctP17IXYREVLZAsDhaVHicU9VC8kKcPpUUNkg17Xiosg4cp4QJGgxAwzZ1LAhgCRCP b+vCX6UrUWB+jcVP4lsWexeyfyb/oJ4IU7m7mz7gry4nGMN5g5i9w+oKxFhG6mBo7WLV D7FB7eqIPi3ljYIgnB92kjrgXXzL4Z7juQOKDsFDDP+yDnJtb9rsL71SqIYXOFTaFXiA hhQiLq5Z3J/tHiA7SysXndz6kVC/7Q4PbhHFX6/IjqLictjdX19BIPGRQHDParh2I/NR aeC6f4tzn2yJYFNuWrmI0DzOiRPkqQxqzTxQIc1tS+KK44Ja4ugo8HagSmJa0OiUAm0+ QHBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SgKGz65xoGBhzl8UE4smqc6ZyDyhBdbyp1Cd/UybCKc=; b=d2CKeiicgjivzpDimPxcWZcxLk2QZAIrdWsggVhRmqM0/AJCtVyZyJEq6IwEsK9cBe 2XKBvAYtd36KLJgqH5YPoxJNzfK0ZKNc0qDLKJ+dkstGNAqeikF39eNVUfSCR3hTLFnp ijVGpfWWaTFFv1ciIlUaMLqxFPcnZZfMwZVA0LBu71PUQQsHyQuntHb8YoLTD4emi6dF 9S5yoX8Mf0T/VoTaQrklnb8Dbj53tsngeSzVbEZCUBaAK2KepRL/pEiuqp/cM8cBpwni SQwBwcWU+g5iGUxt3E53p1+smPsPOyVAY4M3bidhQydKws55M1kVIyFP0yJe0Ki9Y8G+ XCEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIEkJV0LyqO4+XIXxrJY+pZt7K6wDvXSrbXZ3Yow2DBKIBrelBma95GKAyFzovVDg==
X-Received: by 10.50.30.70 with SMTP id q6mr20623902igh.86.1457503809382; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from justsomecomcastuser.selfip.org ([2601:647:4280:238b:505c:a51:30b:70ea]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm8005945igv.6.2016.03.08.22.10.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:10:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <CA+9kkMDBPHYg3ENofdZ2jQxh=Wjv3KZXK+gw=5nYT0B=VL87Qg@mail.gmail.com> <D2E4D163.13877%edward.lewis@icann.org> <56C7B243.3020004@gmail.com> <D2EE34B2.13B6F%edward.lewis@icann.org>
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56DFBE3F.4090508@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:10:07 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2EE34B2.13B6F%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020402060409040705040701"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/arcing/RSESvHgn2XohRB3O6vhfY3nRdoU>
Cc: "arcing@ietf.org" <arcing@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement
X-BeenThere: arcing@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: This list will discuss different architectural approaches to signalling alternative resolution contexts for Internet names <arcing.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/arcing>, <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/arcing/>
List-Post: <mailto:arcing@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcing>, <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 06:10:12 -0000

On 2/19/16 6:43 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 2/20/16, 13:24, "Arcing on behalf of Douglas Otis" > <arcing-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of 
doug.mtview@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is likely 
my last comment. > > Apparently something said 
touched a nerve.  If it's frustration over > 
repeatedly making a point, I'll use this old reply 
of mine: It might > be the 10th time you've said 
"it" but this is the first time I've > heard "it." 
If there's something else, I'll just state that I 
haven't > been closely following the homenet wg in 
the past few years, nor the > dnssd wg for that 
matter, so perhaps there's a boatload of context > 
buried in mail archives. > >> Don't insist 
adoption of draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02 
must >> follow some grander scheme that might make 
use of an alternate root >> or URL modification. 
Any such approach doubtlessly precludes >> 
essential compatibilities needing consideration 
for Homenet >> deployment. > > Due to what I read 
as exasperation, I looked at previous messages on 
 > the mail list and see you've mentioned this 
draft in each of your > posts.  So, I looked it up 
and gave a quick scan.

Dear Ed,

A health related issue is why I indicated this 
would likely be my last comment.

The concern relates to a necessity for having a 
clearly defined domain ensured isolated from 
global DNS in much the same manner as .local that 
unfortunately also signals use of multicast.  A 
non-multicast option is needed to safely contain 
unicast DNS-SD resources as envisioned by Homenet.

Although a more comprehensive signaling scheme 
might marginally overlap with the simpler .home 
domain signaling method, simplicity better 
supports resource limited devices.  As such, 
adoption of  .home in parallel with more generic 
signaling schemes aimed at offering a diversity of 
resolution methods would be prudent.

Regards,
Douglas Otis